I understand all artist want their masters for the money that it provides. However, most of these artist catalogs are worth what they are because of the label.
The label promotes, hires producers, hires writers, pays for radio play, streams, videos etc...
I get they are the talent but the label fronts cash so they can be popular. Signing the contract makes you an asset to the label that they in turn invest in. Then as in any business, they will want and deserve a return on investment.
Why should the artist after the label makes them popular just feel entitled to their masters.
man shut the f*** up
A record deal is a mutual agreement between company and artist. Artists should try to get better deals or just dont sign. Ktt wants labels to pay for everything and get a thank you
A record deal is a mutual agreement between company and artist. Artists should try to get better deals or just dont sign. Ktt wants labels to pay for everything and get a thank you
I think this is a gross oversimplification
This is advanced bootlicking, man.
Labels shouldn't do sneaky s*** to try and prevent artists from buying them back. But other than that I agree.
At the end of the day, they are investing in artists.
And if you aren't ok with giving up your masters or a portion of it, don't sign the contract. It's that simple.
All labels should be required to offer a buyback plan for your masters after you have completed your contractual obligations. I get the label profiting during the time of the recordings and while the artist is dependent, but if you made more than half the artistic contribution to a song you should at some point be able to own the song in my opinion. Again after contractual obligations are met. No you shouldn’t have your masters in the middle of your contract unless you were able to broker that kind of deal.
i see what youre saying, which is why id say the label owning the masters for a few years at most is fine. what the issue is that artists usually arent able to get their masters back EVER . why should the artist still be paying the labels 90% of their music income 50 years after their prime?
street teams invading
All labels should be required to offer a buyback plan for your masters after you have completed your contractual obligations. I get the label profiting during the time of the recordings and while the artist is dependent, but if you made more than half the artistic contribution to a song you should at some point be able to own the song in my opinion. Again after contractual obligations are met. No you shouldn’t have your masters in the middle of your contract unless you were able to broker that kind of deal.
True